Friday, February 26, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
What are property rights, after all?
"For those of you that own rural property in
"The Lane County Commissioners are considering making sweeping changes to the Lane County Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan that would have tremendous effect on rural property owners. These changes include a ban on all Goal 3 or Goal 4 exceptions, the elimination of the county's non-resource zone, and the alteration of the county's template dwelling standards.
"If these changes are adopted, rural property owners in
"Not only would these changes be devastating to rural
"Tonight's meeting is being billed by
I know it is late notice, but if you can attend tonight's meeting, please do so.
Of course, there's my favourite "lefty" word; stakeholder. That's lefty for anyone who believes that property rights can be eliminated in order to enforce someone's vision of social justice.
Go to the meeting. Support your neighbors.
"Truth and rumor
"Several key Democratic lawmakers said they don't believe the claim that pay raises were linked to legislative positions. “Neither I nor anyone I am aware of would tie the two together,” said House Speaker Dave Hunt, D-Clackamas County. “It wouldn't be appropriate, and it didn't happen.”
"Sen. Chip Shields, D-Portland, clashed with prosecutors last year over the earned time issue. Told of their allegations of improper pressure, he said, “I hope they use more evidence than that when convicting people.”
"The prosecutors won't say who they think pressured them to stay silent. But Marquis, who is active in Democratic politics and who is among the candidates to be Oregon's next U.S. attorney, said that based on his inquiries at the Capitol, he firmly believes that “legislators who had the power to do this” made the threat."
More at David's Oregon Picayune.
Oregon. We do things differently here.
It is true that most members of this president's administration have no experience in private sector employment; they've neither received a check for work in the private sector nor have they ever owned a privately-held enterprise. They are in the main public sector drones who have relied upon a government-supplied check for their income.
This is why the disconnect between our president and those of us who are struggling to provide wages to employees, services and goods to our customers, is so incredibly tinny.
As jobs continue to go away, he insists on creating greater levels of uncertainty by pushing for his Hope and Change thingy on health care. Egad, man! You want job creation? Stop throwing huge deficit programs at us! Throwing billions of dollars at Green stuff?
Did you ever wonder why you had to throw billions of dollars at Green Technology, Mr. President? Because, at market prices, no one is willing to spend a dime on Green Technology. It isn't until the government steps in to provide financial incentives--bribes--to users of Green Technology that anyone is "willing" to purchase this Green Technology of yours.
And when that doesn't work? Mandates for Green Technology.
Uncertainty? Well, not about our costs. Our costs are going up, we know that. What we don't know is how big the check is going to be when we go to the government for a hand-out. Nothing? The Big Zero? Prolly.
Health care. Green Economy. Cap and trade. Uncertainty.
We know it's going to be bad. But you don't seem to care about our concerns.
So let's get this Health Care thing done, okay?
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Call it what you want, the Obama plan is about taking money from the private sector in order to pay-off those who don't work.
How do you determine value? I sometimes think about a statement accredited to Erwin Edman, "Education is the process of casting false pearls before real swine."
I have, of course, a slightly different take; the value of thing can be directly related to the cost of a thing.
Price is a great measure of value.
Back when I was teaching, I continually related the abject failure of a man who had developed the world's greatest beer warmer. It cost just a nickel to produce, and he was willing to sell it for a quarter. Good profit margin and low production costs.
The only problem was, most people wanted cold beer.
Similarly, at the moment, there was an example of costless resource; water. Who would be wiling to pay for water, when water was delivered to you without cost? (Remember, I was born and raised in Oregon. We do things wetter here.)
And then, miraculously, externalities were created. We couldn't simply remove water from the local water source. Water had to meet certain standards. But whose standards?
Standards from people who determined that without standards you could die.
Not in one fail swoop. But over time. You could die from long-term exposure to toxins. Carcinogens are one of the favourites. Feed a rat more than 10-thousand times the amount of a substance than that which would ever be experienced by a rational, living human being, and you would--could--create a health hazard. My favourite, of course, is Rachel What's-her-name (WHN), the lady who brought an end to the rational use of DDT.
Rachel WHN developed allies with political aspirations. If you're an old guy, you can guess the list of "Liberal" politicians who helped to pass legislation outlawing the use of DDT. "We can't afford to be wrong" has been the whining apology of the Left since I've been alive.
Of course we can afford to be wrong. What we can't afford is prophylaxis that costs more than it cures. We can rationalize extreme prophylaxis. But, I proffer, we can't afford it.
I'm not being sarcastic. We can afford to be wrong in our day-to-day affairs, operations, mistakes, simply living. What we can't afford is government entering into those everyday decisions in order to remove the risk of our day-to-day mistakes, our day-to-day operations, our day-to-day mistakes. Simply living.
Think about all of the things that government has done for us.
We can't buy affordable health-care insurance because an health-care provider wouldn't want to pay for transgender operations. And medical insurance that wouldn't pay for transgender operations is discriminatory against those who want to change their sex. So, we pay more for medical insurance so that those few who wish to either add or subtract aren't faced with undue medical costs as the result of a mandate from the state.
Those of us who wish simply for an insurance policy that wards off the worst of a terrible accident--in terms of the costs of emergency medical care--can't buy such a policy since it would discriminate against those who want to have insurance that includes the costs of child birth. I simply cannot understand why Democrats and Leftists would want me to pay for another's child.
I didn't even touch her.
But we live in an imperfect world. A world where costs have increased as legislatures have increased the number of mandated coverages my simple terrible accident insurance would have need's cover in order for me to purchase my terrible accident coverage. Just as Rachel WHN offered us safety from the horrible effects of DDT, modern politicians are affording me safety from the risk that I, at age 55, create a child that may have autism. I know where my dick is, I know how children are created. The chances of my needing coverage to provide for the risks of autism in young children is slight. If not non-existant.
So, what is the value of health insurance to me?
In the last 10 years I've saved at least $72-thousand dollars by not having health insurance.
I'm healthy, enough.
I see my dentist on a regular basis. (I pay cash.)
I see my doctor when I feel I want his consult. (I pay cash.)
Do I, will I, get better value than that which I receive currently under any federalized medical insurance plan? Clearly not. I will be worse off.
Will I receive any compensation for my loss? Nope. And any guarantees under the Constitution that I should rely upon are being thrown out the door every day that I live and breath.
Health care is just one issue under which I'm being screwed. Environmental concerns are an additional issue that screws me.
Oh, and then there are the stupid laws that offer prophylaxis; seatbelts, helmets, hands-free cellphones...
Cutting trees. Mining. Fishing.
Prophylaxis is preventative. And we've been told, over and over and over again, that prevention is worth a pound of cure.
And yet, not.
If I choose not to skate on thin ice, I'm brilliant. When I rely upon the government to determine whether or not the ice is thin, I'm an idiot.
Prophylaxis is the Left's new common cure. Just as if we would be better off drinking Lydia Pinkham's elixir. Taking a draught of silly doesn't inure you to the effects of your sotten life. Even if you read the label.
Today's politician--as evidenced by the newest member of our United States' Senate--is not immune to the temptations of prophylaxis. But I will assert that there is greater value from dealing with the infection than there often is in trying to avoid the ravages of the disease.
What is the value of having someone else determine whether or not you are taking "too much" risk?
Risk. Do we have greater risk with centralized authority and control, or do we have greater risk with de-centralized authority and control? The Left will tell you that you have greater risk without their authority. I tend to disagree. The greater the dispersion of risk, the greater is the likelihood that failure or loss will occur to others and not I. If I were managing your portfolio, you could have many--as much as was provident--different investments as was possible.
If I had you invested in a single stock, both you and I would be considered fools.
And yet, this is the investment policy of our current Democratics majority.
"Trust us!" they cry. The Democratics will promise you health and wealth and security. All you need do is give them control over every aspect of your life.
How retarded can you get?
Dorchester runs March 5th through the 7th.
You can still register.
The issues this year?
The State of Oregon Should Require Locator Beacons.
Restructure Oregon Universities.
Withdraw from Afghanistan.
Federal Budget and U.S. Debt.
Reform Oregon's Revenue System.
A highlight for resident's of Oregon's Congressional District One is a planned debate between John Kuzmanich, Stephan Brodhead, Douglas Fitzgerald Keller, and Rob Cornilles.
The links take you to their filing page at the Secretary of State's office. Web addresses can be found there if you want to take a quick look at these candidates websites. I'd like your impression of what you see.
If you've ever wanted to have a chance to learn how to enunciate the beliefs you have in a friendly environment, this is it. You're assigned to a table with ten or so members and a group discussion leader. Each session goes quickly, so don't be afraid to blurt out any ideas you have. Learning how to propose, object, even inviegle. Then one from your table will go to the microphone to report the debate decision of your table. Scary, exciting and fun.
It will fire you up.